In a decision that could well find itself before the Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines. In a rare move, Judge Lawrence Van Dyke offered a video dissent to the majority opinion.The en banc panel previously upheld the state’s magazine ban, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded the case in light of the Bruen decision in 2022. The Ninth Circuit then returned the case to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez.Benitez again ruled that the law was unconstitutional, a prior position that he viewed was strengthened by the Bruen decision.
The Ninth Circuit then, again, overruled the lower court.
In a 7-4 decision authored by senior circuit Judge Susan Graber, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, the majority wrote that “a large-capacity magazine has little function in armed self-defense, but its use by mass shooters has exacerbated the harm of those horrific events.” She added:
“First, the Founders protected the right to keep and bear ‘Arms,’ not a right to keep and bear ‘Arms and Accoutrements,’ a common expression at the time of the Founding,” the opinion said. “Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”
In a belt-and-suspenders approach, the court further ruled that, even if large-capacity magazines were covered by the Second Amendment, “California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”
Three judges appointed by President Donald Trump wrote stinging dissents. Judge Ryan Nelson wrote that his colleagues flouted the standard set by the Bruen ruling and in so doing “(butchered) the Second Amendment and (gave) a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court.”
Judge Lawrence VanDyke went further to include an actual video in which he handles guns and accessories to show why he believes the distinction between a gun and an accessory is illusory:
The judge emphasized that he was not offering the video as new factual evidence. However, it sounds much like the testimony that an expert witness would give at trial. That brought an objection from his colleague, Judge Berzon:
“True, the prejudice to the parties here is arguably minimal because Judge VanDyke has prepared his video in support of a dissent. But if a dissent can rely on a judge’s recorded factual presentation, nothing prevents a majority opinion from doing the same thing. I therefore write separately in the hope that in the future my colleagues, whether in the majority or dissent, will do exactly and only that: write. And, although I am surprised that it is necessary to do so, I write to reemphasize that as judges, we must decide cases as they are presented to us by the parties, leaving advocacy to the attorneys and testimony to the witnesses, expert and otherwise.”
The inclusion of the video is highly irregular and many judges would likely look dimly at the use of such demonstrative evidence in an appellate dissent.
The case offers another opportunity for the Court to address the outward limits of the Second Amendment. Blue states are moving to limit a variety of devices or components deemed “accessories.” If allowed to stand, it could prove a significant area of contraction for the protections for gun ownership.
The case can now be appealed to the Supreme Court, again. It will join another magazine ban case in Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha, which is awaiting a decision on whether it will be picked up by the Court.
Every 18 yr. old in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit shall be drafted and sent to the Russian Front in Ukraine with a Rifle fitted with a Shot-Button and Two Rounds, all Ninth Circuit & California compliant. One round in the barrel for the Enemy (Hit or Miss) and other round in the shirt pocket for the 18 yr. old to shoot himself in the head. No magazine necessary. Just so the Citizens of the Ninth Circuit can finally be satisfied with the rules.
Jonathan: There is more fall out from DJT’s decision to use the AEA of 1798 to kidnap Nicaraguans and secretly fly them to a concentration camp in El Salvador. Chief Judge Boasberg is slowly and methodically in the process of trying to pull back the veil of secrecy by the Pam Bondi DOJ that is trying to hide what happened.
As pointed out in a previous comment DJT told a WH reporter on Friday he did not sign the proclamation invoking the AEA. He claimed others were involved in the decision. DJT said Marco Rubio was responsible because he wanted the Venezuelans out of the country. DJT’s WH handlers immediately realized there was a problem because DJT’s signature was on the order. So yesterday the WH issued the following statement that made things worse: “President Trump was obviously referring to the original Alien Enemies Act that was signed back in 1798. The recent Executive Order [of March 15] was personally signed by President Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act that designated Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in order to apprehend and deport these heinous criminals”.
I have seen a lot of bizarre statements coming out of the DJT WH but this one beats previous records. This one implies DJT thought the Q from the reporter was whether DJT got on a time machine and went back and signed the original AEA. That would mean DJT is more demented than we originally thought. The correct answer is that DJT knew exactly what he signed on March 15 and he is now trying to throw Marco Rubio and others in the WH under the bus!
Ultimately, DJT is responsible for the decision to invoke the AEA to try to justify kidnapping the Venezuelans. But, like he always does, DJT is blaming others for his illegal orders. Remember at the recent joint session of Congress DJT pointed to Marco Rubio in the audience and said: “We now have Marco Rubio in charge, good luck Marco. Now we know who to blame if anything goes wrong”. DJT knew he had a fall guy in case the kidnapping of the Venezuelans didn’t work out as planned. And that plan failed miserably!
Trump indicated that he would use the AEA during the campaign – nothing was secret.
The ACLU filed a case and Judge Boasberg issured a TRO prior to the EO presidential finding and the EO implimenting the AEA were iissued – as a result the Case and Judge Boasbergs initial TRO were deeply flawed. speculative and did not even apply to what was done – which is the reason Boasberg had to impliment an additional order.
Boasberg is not slowly and methodically doing anything – he is speculatively and with numerous errors blundering arround.
Even Rand Paul said that while he does not personally agree witht he AEA it is near certain SCOTUS will uphold it.
You can not even get the national.ity of this people correct – Tren De Arguagua is VENEZUELANS The Two planes that have bearing with respect to the AEA were of VENEZEULANS. The people on those planes were members of a VENEZEUALAN Prison gang – theses are all people convicted of Crimes in VENEZEUALA.
Venezeula was initially accepting them and returning these people to prisons in Venezeula – I highly doubt those are cushier than those in El Salvador. Regardless Venezeuala recently agreed to start accepeting planeloads of Tren De Araugua deportees and returning them to prison in Venezuela. If Boasberg wanted to resolve this quickly – he could allow the Trump administration to transport these TDA members from El Salvador to Venezeual and end this judicial idiocy. Inarguably Trump could do that on his own – they are no longer in the US, Judge Boasberg has no jurisdiction over them. The US sent them to El Salvador specifically because Venezuealla refused to accept them and to assure the US they would be returned to jail and not allowed back into the US.
This was not done secretly – the FAA provides records of all flights.
The Trump administration provided the public with video of thse prisoners being transported, loaded into planes, unloaded from planes in El Salvador and transported to prison and processed in El Salvador.
The Trump administration WANTS people to see this video – if you have watched it there are all big powerful young men – these are NOT children these are not older people.
The administraion is proud of having done this and wants the american people to see that these dangerous people are being removed fromt he country. It also wants other TDA and other criminal illegal aliens in the US to watch this and see what is in store for them, and to voluntarily self deport first. That is the cheapest and most efficient way to get these people out of the US.
The Trump administration WANTS them to see the alternative is a prison in El Salvador – or for those in flights that have resumed a prison in Venezeulla.
Boasberg has pretty much no authority here.
If you accept that the AEA applies -t the only rights these deportees have is for a habeuas hearing and that MUST happen in the case of these deportees in TX. Not DC.
If you do not accept that the AEA applies – then they must appear before immigration courts -= these are article II courts – not article III courts.
They are part of the executive branch not part of the judicial branch. There are only rare instances in which a deportee can seek judicial review by an article III court regardless even if the AEA does not apply Judge Boasberg still does not have jurisdiction – the immigration courts in TX do, and should there be a successful apeal from an article II immigration court in TX it would be to the article III court in TX not to the DC courts.
Those of you on the left do not seem to grasp how egregious the left wing nut lawfare judge shopping is.
“As pointed out in a previous comment DJT told a WH reporter on Friday he did not sign the proclamation invoking the AEA.”
False -why should we trust someone who can not get the nationality of the people on the planes correct.
The president issued the Finding that met the conditions required by the AEA and by separate EO directed the executive branch that it was now able to use the AEA to deport TDA members.
SEPARATELY DHS, ICE, DOJ, and State were involved in a large number of coordinated actions over several weeks to find Tda members, arrest Tda members and arrange with El Salvador to accept Tda members – there were also high level negotiations with Venezeuala and other countries involved in these deportations. This is part of the reason that Jodge Boasberg is being told that some of what he is requesting he can not have.
No judge is entitled to communications betweent he state department and foreign countries about anything – it is pretty much outside of judicial review. Foreign officials will refuse to make deals with the US in the future if they beleive that their dimplomatic communications are going to be made public without their permission.
Rubio was partly responsibile because he is Secretary of State and it is the Sec. State that normally conducts these negotiations.
BTW the process above is typical of ALL Executive orders.
Trump issued the EO creating DOGE and authroizing them to conduct audits. That Directed other cabinet officers and agency heads to cooperate. But the process details are worked out with each agency head – using the direction given by the EO.
As with most everything in the federal govenrment things go down the chain of command.
If you were paying attention – you would have noted this with the Mayorkas impeachment.
Biden issued a broad EO that directed Mayorkas in broad terms. Mayorkas issues the actual rder to CBP and ICE that violated US Law which was the basis for his impeachment.
If you are an ambassador or consul staff int he state department you do not get to decide on your own what an EO means.
The Sec State will craft an order implimenting that EO and he will issue it to subordinates who will then issue more specific guidance to their subordinates. Down the chain of command – you can as a “whistle blower” report to IG’s that either the law, the constitution, or the presidents EO are being violated – but YOU are obligated to follow the direct orders of your superior. You are not free to ignore them because you think the EO means something different than the order they issued.
None of this is new – and you are a moron.
Trump was unaware of any of the details – it is not the presidents job to direct the raids, or the transportation, or forieng negotiations necescary to impliment the AEA EO. It was his job to determine – with the assistance of counsel whether the conditions required to invoke the AEA were met, it was his job with information provided by CIA, NSA, state to issue the necescary presidential findings and to make the appropriate presidential declatrations an to issue the EO enabling the executive branch to use the authority of the AEA and to direct them to do so – I would not that the EO is very specific to Tda. At this time there is no properly executed authority under the AEA to deport people from other countries, people from venezeualla generally or other illegal alien criminals. the current EO and AEA authority is specific to Tda.
Any other deportations you see are being done under other authorities. Even Tda members can be deported under other authorites.
But having invoked the AEA and issued the EO directing the executive branch to use it.
It is highly unlikely that Trump had personal involvement in this particular set of deportations.
As president he is free to micromange things if he wishes – like Lyndon Johnson micromanaged the vietnam war.
But it is not normal.
Rubio – or his subordinates negotiated all the issues involving other countries – therefore Rubio was responsible for the flights and their scheduling.
But the entire process involved DOJ, DHS, State – even CIA and NHS.
The only thing the WH had to “clear up” – was the idiotic misrepresentation by you and the pres.
Trump signed the presidential findings necescary to invoke the AEA. Only the president can do that.
Trump signed the EO directing the entire federal government to use the AEA to deport Tda members – only the president can do that.
Negotiating the transport of Tda members to El Salvador was done entirely by Rubio.
Just as arresting them and transporting them thrtough the US was done by ICE/DHS, and representing the US with Idiot Judge Boasberg is done by DOJ
You do not seem to have watched schoolhouse rock on how a government works.
The demensia is YOURS. The AEA is a law passed in 1798 that has been used atleast 5 times in US history – atleast TWO of those when the US was not at war with anyone.
Utilizing the AEA requires presidential findings, and separate executive orders to authorize the use of he AEA in only the way that the president has decided. In this case specifically against Tda members. But the acutal orders to arrest, transport, deports, fly ….
come from other members of the administration.
Presidents do not typically schedule airplanes – not even AF1. That is done for them.
Next, no one was kidnapped. Convicted criminals who were also illegal aliens were removed from the US. BEcause Venezeaula had previsously refused to accept them back and assure they were returned to prison, they were sent to El salvador.
Possibly as a result of the bad press – or pressure from Tda – which is a powerful political force in Venezuela they have no agreed to take Tda members back and assured they will be imprisoned.
I suspect eventually those in El Salvador will be returned to Venezuala – but that can not happen while Boasberg is mucking arround with this case.
Trump is not blaming others. He is proud of this. His supporters are happy with this. Rubio is happy for his role in this – as is Noem and Homan.
No one is passing the buck. Trump was asked detailed questions by reporters and he told them to ask Rubio, because not all but a significant portion of this was accomplished by Rubio.
DHS as an example can not negotiate with foreign countries and can not arrange flights to other countries.
As I said before – no one is looking to Duck responsibility.
Vance, Noem, Rubio and several other ranking cabinet members int he Trump administration are positioning themselves for the future.
Some republican is going to run for President in 2028 – and every single one of those I mentioned is looking for that spot.
They are also all looking for Trump’s endorsement and for the support of Trump’s MAGA movement.
President Trump made a point of noting that his relationship with Vance is good, but that no one has announced form 2028 and that he has not endorsed vance and likely will not for a long time.
Trump wants them all doing their best to make themselves look good for 2028.
Could the US send them to your home?
Punishing millions of law abiding, American citizens over a few crazies/trans who used firearms in criminal actions and or murder? Lets see if the SC takes this up and overturns the 9th Circuit. Only will it strengthen American’s 2ndA rights.
Jonathan: Yes, it’s “highly irregular” for a judge to dissent by doing a pro-gun infomercial for the plaintiffs in Duncan v. Bonta. In effect, Judge Van Dyke, appointed by DJT, is acting as an expert witness for the Cal. Rifle & Pistol Association, one of the plaintiffs in this case. No doubt the judge’s video will be played at the next CRPA convention. Maybe even the next NRA convention. It is the universal practice that judges speak through their WRITTEN opinions–not through videos endorsing the position of one of the parties in the litigation.
Van Dyke is clearly a gun enthusiast. His video starts with him seated at his desk with an assault weapon prominently displayed on the wall behind him. The video demonstrates that this judge cannot be fair and impartial when it comes to gun cases before him. He should have recused himself from this case. The fact he didn’t is a reason to refer Judge Van Dyke to the Ninth Circuit’s Ethics Counsel for investigation!
You are usually spot on in your comments. However, your next comment might just be a call to Impeach Judge Van Dyke – which john roberts would remind us all is not the proper way to handle the situation.
Dennis – there is an old saying that “a picture is worth a thousand words”.
There is absolutely nothing in VanDykes video hat could not have been communicated – albeit far less efficiently by thousands of words in disent.
I know this is difficult for you – but judges are finders of Fact. There is nothing in the video that was not touched on in briefs and oral argument.
Absolutely VanDyke is making CRPA’s argument – sometimes one side or the other is thoroughly convincing.
Regardles VanDyke and CRPA are correct.
But the big issue – not part of the video is that SCOTUS remanded this case for reconsideration in light of Bruen.
VanDyke’s dissent and the majorities decision has NOHING to do with Bruen. CA has made a new argument for why they can regulate large capacity magazines – a bad one, but still new. But they FAILED to address the missing Bruen support in either their original case or in this new argument.
You talk about disregarding Court orders – the 9th circuit is disregarding an order by the supreme court of the united states.
I expect they are going to be really pi$$ed.
This is not the first time the 9th circuit has done this, and this is not the first time the supreme court has somewwhat politely told the 9th circuit – YOU GOT THIS WRONG TRY AGAIN.
SCOTUS does not want to hear – either VanDykes explanation for why CA;s new argument is garbage, anymore than DA’s new argument.
They want to know what immediate pre and post 2A history supports the right of states to regulate the number of rounds a weapon may hold.
I would not that history and tradition runs through the aftermath of the civil war – because the 14A is what both implicit and explicitly applies the 2A to the sates. a part of the reason for the priviledges and immunites clause in the 14A was to extend the right to firearms to freed slaves in a way that states could not undermine.
At the end of the Civil War we had Revolvers, belt fed gattling guns and 16 shot Henry repeating rifles.
Going to be hard to find support for regulation of capacity in law of that era.
“Van Dyke is clearly a gun enthusiast.”
As is hundreds of millions of americans.
“His video starts with him seated at his desk with an assault weapon prominently displayed on the wall behind him.”
No there is a semi-automatic rifle.
Technically there is no such thing as an asault rifle – but to the extent riffles are used for assaults – that would be light machine guns, or ak47’s or M16’s Though in the Civil war – single shot springfields with bayonets would have been used for assaults.
“The video demonstrates that this judge cannot be fair and impartial when it comes to gun cases before him.”
No it just demonstrates he know what he is talking about.
Can only deaf mutes rule on the first amendment. Fair and impartial does not mean blind to the stupidity of the left.
CA is seeking to violate the 2A rights of its citizens.
NO Right is absolute – not even the 2A – but for a law that violates a right – and there is ZERO doubt this law violates the 2A to still be valid,
It must meet exacting standards. Heller and McDonald created a level of court scrutiny higher than intermediate scrutiny and less than strict scrutiny that 2A restrictions must meet.
The burden is on CA to prove their law meets them. While CRPA is challenging the law – the burden of proving the infringement on 2A rights meets the requirements of the constitution rests with CA.
SCOTUS told them what they had to do to establish that – and CA ignored it and tried a new argument that still does not adress the requirements of the constitution to infringe on 2A rights.
That is the standard.
“He should have recused himself from this case.”
Because what ? He is not ignorant of the workings of a gun ?
” The fact he didn’t is a reason to refer Judge Van Dyke to the Ninth Circuit’s Ethics Counsel for investigation!”
The ehtics violation is with the majority – they deliberately ignored an order by SCOTUS.
Why you need more than 10 rounds. Because 10 is less than 14.
seems to me analogous to saying….
OK cans are protected by law, but a “can opener” is an accessory, and thus may be banned, and since electric or hand held cranking can openers are far more efficient they may be banned. Thus, we need to revert to the old style opener which came with the
Swiss army knife you got in second grade.
A clip with diverse bullets or diverse clips with minority bullets. More human lives are endee with a scalpel and similar weapons in mass events that entertain abortive ideation.
I hate to see decisions based on arbitrary technicalities — the “accoutrements and accessories” lingo has that exact stench. I’d much rather see arguments based on common sense principles, such as the interest of public safety in capping the maximum sustained kill rate of a weapon, which bears directly on speed of intervening with counterforce to stop a criminal mass shooting.
Why are RPGs and machine gun bans accepted by 2A supporters?…..sustained kill rate tips the balance of power too far toward the criminal over the innocent citizen and law enforcement.
Congress could and should work out a modern interpretation of 2A. It’s not up to plaintiffs, lawyers and judges what gun policy should be, it’s up to elected legislators. The Constitution is being thwarted by Congress’ cowardice to fulfill its proper role as the place where 2A controversy is decided.
Just to be clear.They aren’t accepted. They are a clear violation.
“Why are RPGs and machine gun bans accepted by 2A supporters?”
Speak for yourself, not what you imagine to be the universe of “2A supporters”. The Second Amendment was intended to allow (among other results) the ability of the people to defend their liberties against future oppressive governments. At this time, the weapons that you evidently oppose, would be the minimum requirements.
Bans on RPGs and machine guns are unconstitutional, understanding that these are arms that can be kept and borne by citizens and that property damage and bodily injury are illegal, criminal, and actionable.
Who told you that 2A supporters favored unconstitutional bans on these arms?
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people; dictatorship does.
“Congress could and should work out a modern interpretation of 2A.”
In 1789 Congress “worked out” the only “interpretation” of the Second Amendment that is necessary, or possible, then, or today. It says what it means, and it means what it says. Unless you have the will and the means to see an amendment changing that meaning through to ratification, accept that and STFU, or emigrate somewhere that it does not apply.
Please provide evidence that RPG’s are banned. Cannons are not banned – prior to his death my local mayor owned the largest private collection of cannons in the US. Perfectly legal.
Regardless, congress gets to pass laws, but it is the exclusive domain of the supreme court to decide whether they are constitutional – Not congress.
“. . . to limit a variety of devices or components deemed ‘accessories.’” (JT)
By the Court’s reasoning, *any* magazine (holding *any* number of cartridges) and *any* rotating cylinder (holding *any* number of cartridges) are all merely “accessories,” and therefore not protected by 2A. After all, the Founders did not have magazines or rotating cylinders. And “firearms operate as intended without a . . . magazine’ or rotating cylinder.
You misspelled Ninth Circus….
Well, I guess the 9th circuit failed to recognize the illogic of their argument, paraphrasing here “a larger capacity magazine has little function in self defense, but is used by mass shooters”. I guess the 9th circuit has determined the right to self defense does not include defending yourself from a mass shooter when the mass shooter has a high capacity magazine.
And hear we are once again dealing with rogue courts.
Scotus told CA to revisit this case in light of Bruen.
I.E demonstrate that the law you are seeking to impose is something that has precedent during the early history of the US.
That means the period from before the founding through to about a decade after the civil war.
The Civil was is important – because the legislative history of the 14th amendment made it clear that the priviledges and immunities clause was expected among other things to extend 2A rights to freed black slaves. That 14A applied 2A to the STATES,
By the end of the civil war we had revolvers, we had double action repeating rifles, and we had gattling guns.
I would note that Gatling guns are legal today – they are NOT an automatic weapon. A gattling gun continues to fire so long as you crank the handle – when you stop it stops. Regardless gattling guns were belt fed with “large capacity magazines” – most repeating rifles were capable of firing 20 or more rounds before reloading.
From before the founding – through to post civil war there were few if any restrictions on firearms.
Large capacity weapons existed and there were no laws banning them.
That is the Bruen test – which CA fails here.
CA was directed by SCOTUS to revisit this case in light of Bruen – they were told to find historical precidents for the law they were passing.
And they failed to do so and went off on this cockamamy argument that a magazine is not a firearm and therefor can be regulated.
Just an fyi: Gatling guns were not belt fed. They were gravity fed loose cartridges from a hopper above the mechanism.
Lewis and Clark carried an automatic air rifle.
I think the judges video dissent reveals the problems with the distinction between facts and arguments.
This judge made many of the same “arguments” in his questioning of the states attorney – and it is clear the attorney and many other judges entirely missed the point.
VanDyke did not introduce new Facts – all the “facts” he presented in his video are also arguments, that he could have made in writing – just with less clarity – a picture is worth a thousand words.
Two rather strange rulings came out over the weekend from Disct Court Judge James Boasberg. Boasberg issued an order to the State of Israel that they must return the hostages to Hamas because, as he put it “the hostages were originally taken for just reasons” and Hamas was only persuaded to return the hostages “as a result of President Donald J. Trump’s ‘undue unfluence’ over Hamas fair and just policies and practices.” Boasberg also issued a separate, unrelated court order directing President Trump to rescind all of his Executive Orders as null and void. Although Boasberg gave no specific reasons for this order, he did say that he consulted with Judge Arthur Engoron, Andrew Weissmann, Esq., and Professor Laurence Tribe, who Judge Boasberg said were the nation’s leading Constitutional law experts.
Although President Trump commented “What a load of crock” after the two rulings this weekend, Chief Justice John Roberts shot back that “it was wholly inappropriate for the Executive Branch to criticize the Judicial Branch’s flawless reasoning and that when such disagreements arise, the appellate courts are the appropriate venue for addressing said disagreements.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett also commented on Judge Boasberg’s decisions, saying “It’s a sad day when the Executive Branch fails to recognize that the Judicial Branch controls and directs the US Government. If George Floyd were alive today, he would be shocked and upset.” When Justice Barrett was asked to amplify on her comment referencing George Floyd, she declined to provide any further details.
So basically, a magazine of 10 or fewer rounds is an arm, but a magazine of 11 rounds or more is an accoutrement? How do you figure?
Two or more is technically “higher capacity” than one. Come to think of it, one is higher than zero….
That was supposed to be a reply to the comment below.
You are too late. Judge Boasberg has ruled that you cannot now unilaterally apply your comment to another post. While I see no problem with you reassigning which post you are responding to, Judge Boasberg makes the rules. Not me. And I don’t want to raise the ire of Justice Roberts or Justice Barrett, since they consider Judge Boasberg to be unimpeachable.
“First, the Founders protected the right to keep and bear ‘Arms,’ not a right to keep and bear ‘Arms and Accoutrements,’ a common expression at the time of the Founding,” the opinion said. “Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”…In a belt-and-suspenders approach, the court further ruled that, even if large-capacity magazines were covered by the Second Amendment, “California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”
===========
I will say this, this is a WELL REASONED and legit application of Bruen. I do NOT agree with it, but the application is spot o. 100% on the money and legit. The SCOTUS will certainly take it up and reverse IMO, but again, it is how one interprets, and then applies, the case law that matters. Last in time wins. I cannot fault the majority for this opinion at all- even though I disagree with it. The video dissent was ridiculous, and totally out of line. Berzon, whom I disagree with 99.999% of the time, time, was spot on; videos FROM THE BENCH have no place in the majority OR minority ruling/opinions. What was he thinking???
Would cars function as intended with a two-quart fuel tank?
And wasn’t hanging sodomites part of our Nation’s traditions? ISTR Warren Burger, CJ, waxing nostalgic about that in his special concurrence in Bowers v. Hardwick. Let’s not assign too much weight to our “Nation’s traditions.”
The arms accuotrements argument is a dead bang loser – specifically because the Founders did NOT regulate what you are calling arms accoutrements. And that is essentially what SCOTUS was saying when they remanded in directed CA to revisit the case in light of Bruen.
As Judge VanDyke noted – this claim that something is an accessory or accouterments and can therefor ebe regulated – results in the ability to either completely ban firearms or reduce them to something useless.
In 1787 there were no revolvers. There were no self contained bullet/cartridges. the trigers on guns struck flints that ignited a primer that ignited gunpowder.
By 1865 we had revolvers repeating rifles. belt fed gattling guns.
What is a fire arm and what is not ? The 9th circuit decision – not only bans large capacity machines – but the logic would allow CA to on its own define what a firearm is to the point that what was legal would be useless.
The central test of bruen is, is there a history of similar regulations in the counding era through the the 14th amendment.
There are NOT.
This decision is NOT an applicaiton of Bruen – it disregards Bruen entirely.
It is a creative claim for a basis to regulate firearms that has no foundation in early US history,
Bruen requires you to find a foundation for your proposed regulation in that history, not play word games and concoct a new scheme for regulating firearms.
While Judge VanDyke does an excellent job of destroying the logic of this decision,
The reason this decision will be overturned is that the 9th circuit was told to revist their prior decison in light of Bruen.
They did not.
Actually they did revisit it they’re just interpreting it different than what you are and it’s very well reasoned.
The Second Amendment is embarrassing to the American left, so they try to neuter it to the extent they can, which makes it easier for them to deal with psychologically.
#74. The constraint placed by the 2nd obviously requires other measures. Removing violence based media programming is a start. Removing the idols of the anti-hero another. Teaching the morality of not killing, theft in all its forms another.
Absurd culture currently as people applaud the cold blooded murderer, Mangione.
My condolences…
I agree with this ruling. If you can’t say something with 10 rounds, you won’t be able to say it with 30.
Brilliant constitutional reasoning!
Why do the police get to use pistols that hold 15 rounds and more, while civilians must make do with 10?
Are civilians that much better shots than police, whho are paid to carry firearms? I wouldvexpec
I would expect civilians to need guns that carry more rounds of ammo than police can get by with.
Courts do not get to decide whether people can “say something with 10 rounds, or they need 30”
They were asked to decide if the CA law was constitution.
The Bruen standard they were asked to consider was not did firearms with more than 10 rounds exist from pre-revolutionary times through to about a decade after the 14th amendment – they did. The Henry repeating riffle had a capacity of 16 rounds.
Gattling guns were belt fed – and though a precursor to machine guns are NOT machine guns.
There were no laws in the founding era restricting the capacity of firearms,
Therefore the CA law restricting capacity fails the bruen test.
Regardless, your argument that no one needs more than 10 rounds is not a legitimate question for the courts.
Legislatures can consider what people need when crafting a law.
Courts must decide what the law and constitution give them a RIGHT to – not what they NEED.
Say what you will about Kel-Tec, but THIS gun was a real attention getter at SHOT-SHOW 2025 in January. NO MAGAZINE… top loaded with 2x 10 round CLIPS… plus one, for a total of 21 rounds. This is a 5.7x28mm gun that TOTALLY defeats this law… if you aren’t aware of how powerful the 5.7 round is you need to read up on the ballistics of this baby.
That thing I pure TRASH… Get serious.
Not that I agree with it, but that court might argue, with some logic, that an internal magazine is still a “magazine”, and allow banning the entire firearm. Then they could go after everyone’s little .22 rifles with tubular mags, and numerous other such arms.
Which is why this decision is wrong. The Henry repeating Rifle has 16 cartidges in an internal magazine.
Gattling guns were belt fed. there is no period effort to requlate magazine capacity.
Johnthan its Not a Suprise that the 9th Circuit would come to this decision on guns/magazines. They do not believe in the 2nd Amendment and any cases that proves they are wrong. On to the Supreme Court, which will overrule the 9th,